This study investigated the short-term and delayed effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback (WCF) on L2 learners’ revision accuracy and new pieces of writing (i.e., the transfer effect of feedback). Three types of feedback were compared: direct feedback and two types of indirect feedback that differed in their degree of explicitness (i.e., underlining only and underlining+metalinguistic cues). Fifty-three intermediate level learners of English as a second language (ESL) were divided randomly into four groups: One direct, two indirect, and a control group. Students produced three pieces of writing from different picture prompts and revised them over a three-week period. Each group also produced a new piece of writing two weeks later. The study included seven sessions: Writing 1, revision of Writing 1, Writing 2, revision of Writing 2, Writing 3, revision of Writing 3, and Writing 4 (delayed writing). The results showed that all the three feedback groups significantly outperformed the control group in revision tasks. Some short-term accuracy improvements were also found on new pieces of writing for direct and underlining+metalinguistic feedback, but the effects were largely non-significant.
Al-Rubai’eyF.NassajiH. (2013). Direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback: A matter of suitability rather than superiority. In MahmoudM.Al MahrooqiR. (Eds.), Issues in TEFL in the Arab World (pp. 203–232). Muscat: Sultan Qaboos University Press.
2.
AmrheinH.R.NassajiH. (2010). Written corrective feedback: what do students and teachers prefer and why?Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.
3.
AshwellT. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.
4.
BitchenerJ. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
5.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–431.
6.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322–329.
7.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2009b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
8.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
9.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258.
10.
BrownD.H. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language teaching. 3rd edition.New York: Longman/Pearson Education.
11.
BrutonA. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136–140.
12.
BrutonA. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491–498.
13.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
14.
ChandlerJ. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345–348.
15.
de JongN.VercellottiM.L. (2016). Similar prompts may not be similar in the performance they elicit: Examining fluency, complexity, accuracy, and lexis in narratives from five picture prompts. Language Teaching Research, 20, 387–404.
16.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
17.
FathmanA.K.WhalleyE. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In KrollB. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FerrisD. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
19.
FerrisD. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
20.
FerrisD. (2003) Responding to writing. In KrollB. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.119–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
FerrisD. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
22.
FerrisD. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
FerrisD. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
24.
FerrisD. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45, 446–459.
25.
FerrisD.RobertsB. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
26.
FerrisD.HeltM. (2000) Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Unpublished paper presented at the Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
27.
FrearD.ChiuY.H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
28.
HartshornK.J.EvansN.W.MerrillP.F., et al. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
29.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
30.
KepnerC.G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 7, 305–313.
31.
LalandeJ.F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
32.
Larson-HallJ. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
33.
LindstrombergS. (2016). Inferential statistics in Language Teaching Research: A review and ways forward. Language Teaching Research, 20, 741–768.
34.
LiuY. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona working papers in SLA and Teaching, 15, 65–79.
35.
LiuQ.BrownD. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
36.
LysterR.LightbownP.SpadaN. (1999). A response to Truscott’s ‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457–467.
37.
MaxwellS.E.DelaneyH.D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
38.
MirzaiiM.AliabadiR.B. (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 191–213.
39.
NassajiH. (2011). Correcting student’s written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus non-negotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 315–334.
40.
NassajiH. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
41.
NassajiH. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–562.
42.
PolioC.FleckC.LederN. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.
43.
RobbT.RossS.ShortreedI. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95.
44.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
45.
SemkeH. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
46.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
47.
SheenY. (2010a). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 169–179.
48.
SheenY. (2010b). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 201–234.
49.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556– 569.
50.
SheppardK. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
51.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.
52.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103–131.
53.
StorchN. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. IJES, 10, 29–46.
54.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
55.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2002). Talking it through: two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
56.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
57.
TruscottJ. (1999). The case for ‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
58.
TruscottJ.HsuA.Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
59.
Van BeuningenC.G. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second language writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Available at: http://dare.uva.nl/en/record/374645 (accessed September 2018).
60.
Van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
61.
Van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
